Never mind an Heil to Blair......

[InsaneApache]

Teachers are underpaid and to compensate for this, they get a good pension. Sort of "short term loss for long term stability" rationale only possible because public sector usually has "jobs for life" and if they don't, they lose a large chunk of their pension plans.

Majority of the teachers if they were in the private sector (in other jobs as well) would easily be earning double their salary, which in turn, can pay for very good pensions anyway. Big down side to this, we have a shortage of good teachers already, you want to get rid of more or as Rob said "Make it financially unreasonable to even consider teacher as a career".

So what you have is people who are underpaid and only compensated with their pension, having a big reduction to their pension.

There you have it ladies and gentlemen. The thoughts from the left.

Now where on earth did I mislay my magic money tree?

[HoreTore]

There you have it ladies and gentlemen. The thoughts from the left.

Now where on earth did I mislay my magic money tree?

The middle class.

An established middle-class guy with no risk should be taxed to death.

I also find it hilarious when people make the connection that government run stuff is spending money, while privately run stuff creates money...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The middle class.

An established middle-class guy with no risk should be taxed to death.

I also find it hilarious when people make the connection that government run stuff is spending money, while privately run stuff creates money...

The doctrine of Oiberal equality says he should be taxed as much as anyone else.

[HoreTore]

The doctrine of Oiberal equality says he should be taxed as much as anyone else.

Yes, there are plenty of doctrines out there which doesn't further economic growth.

[Fragony]

'Such is the result of the irresponsible destruction of European society by the ultraliberal plunder of the past three years. We are replacing moderate, advanced, socialdemocratic European civilisation for a brutal jungle not just by the replacement of governmental structures for Hobbesian strife, but by the very replacement of advanced Europeans for uneducated non-Europeans.'

Only the last 3 years, it has been set in motion decades ago and we have no alternative for making the best out of it. No idea why it had to be this way but such is the way when simply being reasonable collides with the leftist churches' most holy texts. They simply can't accept that some cultures are superior to others. The typical gutmensch is a babyboomer, better educated than his parents, not used to being disagreed with. He cannot look at himself in a critical manner as being wrong is a concept that is beyond his grasp, it's simply not possible for him to consider he's wrong, nobody ever told him how to deal with that.

[rory_20_uk]

Teachers are underpaid and to compensate for this, they get a good pension. Sort of "short term loss for long term stability" rationale only possible because public sector usually has "jobs for life" and if they don't, they lose a large chunk of their pension plans.

Majority of the teachers if they were in the private sector (in other jobs as well) would easily be earning double their salary, which in turn, can pay for very good pensions anyway. Big down side to this, we have a shortage of good teachers already, you want to get rid of more or as Rob said "Make it financially unreasonable to even consider teacher as a career".

So what you have is people who are underpaid and only compensated with their pension, having a big reduction to their pension.

Really??? If it's so bad, and they can easily get better jobs elsewhere, then go get them!!! But they don't - which seems to point to the fact they know there's nothing else better that they could do, so they'd better cling on to what they've got.

The publicly funded teacher consumes wealth when he teaches children. Whereas the toilet lady from the private cleaning agency adds wealth when she cleans the school toilets. Or so says the thesis 'public means wealth consumption, private means wealth creation'.

The teacher is of course consuming wealth (as, of course, do I as a GP). A teacher might help their students create wealth down the line. I might create wealth by helping people get back to work (although I am viewed by many patients as a rubber stamp to give them free money via sick notes).

Both private and public can create wealth or consume wealth. The state system just has a much worse track record in doing so.

Indeed.

The private sectors aim is to create a profit. The public sectors aim is to gt reelected, which it can only do with good services.

Thus, the private sector works best on some areas, the public sector in other areas.

Quite simple really.

So simple it's completely false. Public services run themselves and even if politicians wanted massive reform - who is going to do this? The public service? Governments might set broad trends, but the quality of the services is rarely a factor. Social Services cheerfully neglects children to the point they are killed at a steady rate. Occasionally we get a really nasty one that catches the papers when we get a report after a few years... and nothing changes. Other changes take so long to make a difference that who knows who really did the positive change? We then have two sets of parameters we can use: various statistics which not only are flawed but require a legion of people to create - or we can go down the "look how great we are - we spent loads more on X - therefore it must be better, right?"

[gaelic cowboy]

I also find it hilarious when people make the connection that government run stuff is spending money, while privately run stuff creates money...

Indeed I remember Louis pointing out before that a contract cleaning company in a school consumes public money same as the school.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Indeed I remember Louis pointing out before that a contract cleaning company in a school consumes public money same as the school.

The publicly funded teacher consumes wealth when he teaches children. Whereas the toilet lady from the private cleaning agency adds wealth when she cleans the school toilets. Or so says the thesis 'public means wealth consumption, private means wealth creation'.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Indeed I remember Louis pointing out before that a contract cleaning company in a school consumes public money same as the school.

It's quite true - which is why you need an actual private sector, not just subsidiaries serving the state.

Louis, you may be correct about the current situation but it does not necessarily follow that current Right-Wing policies are to blame, over-inflated public sectors, lack of cash reserves, and national deficits have necesitated tightening of both public and private purses. Those conditions all evolved under Left-Wing domination of European politics.

It's no wonder people are angry at the Left now.

[HoreTore]

It's quite true - which is why you need an actual private sector, not just subsidiaries serving the state.

That's quite irrelevant. A private sector schools cleaning service still uses up public money just like a public school would.

[InsaneApache]

That's quite irrelevant. A private sector schools cleaning service still uses up public money just like a public school would.

That's correct. However it does so to make a profit for their shareholders, which they have a legal duty to do so. On the other hand the public sector has no such requirement. The public sector is wholly reliant on the taxpayer, whereas the private sector, who is the taxpayer, is not.

Quite simple really.

[HoreTore]

Indeed.

The private sectors aim is to create a profit. The public sectors aim is to gt reelected, which it can only do with good services.

Thus, the private sector works best on some areas, the public sector in other areas.

Quite simple really.